SZPICEK v. SZPICEK

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff commenced this action to void a separation agreement dated October 31, 1991, on the grounds of fraud, misrepresentation, duress, and undue influence. However, even taking all of the plaintiff's allegations to be true and granting her every favorable inference arising therefrom, the plaintiff's complaint failed to state a cause of action ( see, Sanders v Winship, 57 N.Y.2d 391; Morone v Morone, 50 N.Y.2d 481; Green v Leibowitz, 118 A.D.2d 756). Ritter, J.P., Altman, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.